More random python observations from a perl programmer

[Fredrik Lundh]

Jeremy Hylton <jeremy at cnri.reston.va.us> wrote:
> I did think about this before I jumped, but it still seems fair to
> jump.  As a possible counterexample to the "if it don't have manpages
> it don't exist" argument, I would suggest the C programming language.
> I don't believe there are manpages that describe the language itself,
> yet I found it (relatively) easy to learn.  The K&R C book is mighty
> fine. 
> 
> It's also worth noting that the old Lutz book is a little like the
> pre-ANSI K&R C book.  You're not going to find ANSI changes in the old 
> K&R, and you're not going to find Python 1.5 info in the old Lutz
> book.  In neither case does that mean the improvements don't exist.

as an aside, it's a bit sad that Tom didn't read the book's
preface, where Mark says, among other things:

    "... It's Not a Reference Manual ... This book is more like
    a tutorial than a reference manual. ... this book doesn't
    replace Python's reference manuals. If you want an ex-
    haustive list of language rules, the manuals do the job ...
    the manuals can be used to supplement the material
    here, if needed ..."

on the other hand, Webster says a "manual" is "a book that
is conveniently handled," so maybe Mark should have used
the word "handbook" to be on the safe side ;-)

</F>